BTB, you have brought up some valid issues and I will most certainly address them from my point of view.
I can see no reason not to combine the fish and game commission.
There is no real reason to support two seperate headquarters and there is no real reason for the duplication when it comes to administration. There should be substantial savings on expense in those two areas. I don't have the PFBC figures in front of me but almost 30% of the expenditure for the PGC are taken up by administration, Information and education, executive office and technology expenses. Those are the areas where I'd think one agency could save money by reducing duplication. Obviously they wouldnt save 30% but if each agency coulds save 10 or 15% that would be huge.
There is no question that the two agencies could be combined but I also think there are other factors that should be fully considered before anyone thinks it is a good idea, would result in cost savings or provide a better service to the public.
First of all the combined Fish and Game agencies across the Country today, which includes most, started out as a combined agency when they were first formed. Pennsylvania didn’t start out combined because we were one of the first Game Agencies in the nation and no one was thinking fish conservation at that time. Perhaps that was a mistake made in by the early conservationists, but that is how it played out here in Pennsylvania that we ended up with two separate agencies. Contrary to what some think I tend to think that both agencies have done well at their respective missions though I am sure they would have fulfilled a united mission had they been together from the beginning.
The combination of the two agencies has been studied by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee several times over my thirty plus years and each time it has come back with the conclusion that there would be no significant financial gain or improvement of service from a combination. One of the most major problems and expense to merge the two would be cross training all of the WCOs to do both jobs. We are not presently cross trained and believe me when I tell you that would be a major event. Right now Fish Officers don’t need to receive days of annual training on the use of the wildlife immunization drugs Game WCOs are trained to use nor are they trained in the various wildlife management fields they would have be trained in if they were to start working wildlife. Game WCOs are not training in fish and water management principles, the operation of the various watercraft or ice and water rescue and recoveries but we would all of those training if we were to start filling the duties of the Waterways Officer. There would be major expense and time involved in that cross training. Much of that cross training would also require annual refresher training and certification which would mean even more time with no officers available to answer pubic calls.
That expense for cross training wasn’t a factor for state agencies that started out with both fish and game combined because it was all past of their initial training when they went through their training academy. Those were younger guys going through those academy as recruits too. How do you think it would work out training us guys in our fifties and sixties in some of those new procedures?
It could be done but all of the studies have come back saying it would cost millions of dollars to initially make the cross over. So far no one has come forth to provide the money that it would take to make that transition and neither the Game or Fish Commission have the financial capability to pay for such a transition.
Even though I agree with much of the current deer management policies, the PGC has taken the wrong approach with the group that provides the lions share of its funds. The recent crossbow vote is a glaring example. The biological ramifications were not researched and the hunter input was overwhelmingly against it. So we have an issue decided virtually without any science and directly against the social climate of the people who pay the bills. I disagree with most of the USP mentality and the lawsuit but the PGC just handed the USP another clipfull of bullets and also alienated much of an organization that always steadfastly supported them, the UBP.
As far as the crossbow issue, I was fairly neutral on it but I am absolutely and positively disgusted with the vote in the face of the overwhelming hunter input against it. Again, there was no science to support inclusion so the social climate was the only consideration. The fact that a commssioner owns a sporting goods store and stands to profit should have been a strong reason for him to abstain.
I am not even going to debate the crossbow issue. If you have noticed I have never said anything one way or the other on crossbows. I have heard both sides and I stand completely neutral on the topic with no strong opinions one way or the other. I don’t think it will be a big management issue though I do expect some concerns to arise. As near as I can see it is strictly a social issue and the Board of Commissioners made what they believed to be the best direction for the future. It wouldn’t the first time they made an unpopular decision that was soon well accepted once people found out it wasn’t the problem they expected.
I will say this. It is the job of the Game Commission to manage all of the resources with primary consideration going toward the resource. Then they have the obligation to provide as many hunting and trapping opportunities for as many people as possible without adversely affecting that balance with the resource. That isn’t always an easy thing to do or one that is going to made everyone happy.
I will say that I too was a bit surprised by the vote but I can’t say it was the wrong thing to do either when you base it on the two criteria I just posted.
RSB, I have a healthy respect for you, and the dedication you appear to have for your job. Your job is law enforcement but you spend personal time on here attempting to answer questions and provide information related to your job and the policies of the agency. For that I thank you. Your recent posts however are disturbing. You accepted the job you hold knowing how the agency is funded. You have accepted paychecks, which you've certainly earned, knowing they came from hunters for all those years. When one acepts money from the public, any public, there is a certain amount of responsibility to that public. Taking criticism and having to listen to the concerns of the public who funds you comes with the territory. Your comments were out of line and I find it deeply disturbing that that mentality seems to be appearing more and more from the PGC.
I have respect for you and all other hunters that aren’t set on dismantling the proper and scientific management of the resources or intend on using financial black mail to drive the professional back to doing the wrong thing for the future because they think they know more then the professionals. I can’t have respect for people with that mindset because I have seen the decades of damage that mindset has already caused to so much of habitat in this northern tier of the state.
When I come onto the message boards I am on my own time using my own computer and I am not representing the Game Commission, I am speaking my mind the same as everyone else on here and my personal opinions are not necessarily the agency views.
My comments concerning hunter money obviously did not include the best choice of words or politically correctness. That happens when someone gets under my skin enough, and I guess I do regret not handling that as I typically do by not posting until the next day on comments that get under my skin andhave had time to cool down. But I most certainly do believe it is time to move to general funding and I will address the reasons why with my response to your next comments.
As for how fish and game management sholud be funded, IMHO, we should fight as hard as we can for a combined independent agency funded by those that utilize the resource. The minute we take money from all taxpayers we lose more influence and we already have too little say in wildlife matters. The recent crossbow vote proves that.
That doesnt mean hunters should have the only say. Without landowners, we have no hunting anyway because they're the ones who provide food and habitat for our wildlife. We need to accept that we are not the only ones who "pay" for wildlife. The farmer "pays" with lost crops. The timber interests, which includes anyone who may sell their timber some day "pay" through lost tree regeneration. Every driver "pays" for our deer herd in the form of insurance premiums for comprehensive which covers deer collisions.
For about the first two decades of working in this field I too argued that we never wanted to become a general agency and for the very same reasons you just expressed. But, over the past decade I have come to a different conclusion and now believe we do need to move to general funding to support wildlife management. Allow me to explain why I feel that way.
First of all it is no secret that we are losing hunters all across the nation. That trend is going to continue as more and more of use baby boomers fall from the folds of the hunter ranks. We can’t change that and thinking we can is only a pipe dream even though I agree that we need to continue in our attempts to recruit hunters at ever chance we get. Hunters are also going to be important toward sound wildlife management baring some very serious changes in many environmental quarters across our state and nation.
With ever rising costs and ever declining hunter numbers we all knew the day would come when hunters alone could no longer fund the needs of sound wildlife management. The only question has always been just when that day would arrive. I have watched so many needed wildlife research and management initiatives getting abandoned over the past few years due to the lack of funding that I am of the opinion it has reached the point were wildlife management is starting to go backwards instead of forward. For someone that has dedicated a lifetime toward our wildlife resources, there protection and their management that simply IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
So how did it get to this point? Well in my opinion it has reached this point because of political blackmail that has come from a small but vocal minority of our hunters. But, too many of the good hunters have stood back and allowed that vocal minority to carry the day, so they aren’t without blame either.
But blame or even the political blackmail isn’t even the real issue of what caused me to change my mind on general funds or some other funding method. I would actually prefer a percentage of the a dedicated annual tax base to be used for wildlife management funding in conjunction with the hunting license fees with a build in COLA.
Every citizen of this Commonwealth, hunter or not, has a voice in how wildlife or the habitat is managed and that isn’t going to change. It is only going to become more pronounced. Many of those voices have contributed nothing toward the game fund because they don’t buy a hunting license. Heck people on this very board openly state that they don’t hunt in this state anymore but still call their Legislator to express their demands. If people that are non-hunters or even anti hunters are getting a say now and getting what they want, they are already in the wildlife management game. They are not only in the game but walking away with the winnings, so why shouldn’t they have to anti-up to be in he game when they are getting what they want over the wishes of hunters?
Here are just a few more examples of why I think everyone should support wildlife management funding. I spend hundreds of hours every year responding to and trapping bears that are coming into housing developments, bee yards or corn fields. Besides the hours expended there are thousands of dollars worth of gasoline, immobilization drugs and equipment used to move those bears. Most of those complaints aren’t coming from hunters yet they reap the benefits of the hunter dollars. Yes, hunter still receive some benefit from that work though since many of those bears would be killed if we didn’t move them and we even used that trapping and marking data in the bear population estimates but why should hunters be the only ones paying for that service. How about the hundred so highway killed deer we have to remove every year with the hunter’s money. Why shouldn’t the taxpayers be paying that? How about all of the non-game species that everyone likes to see and people that have never bought a hunting license come to here to enjoy? We manage those and sometimes at considerable cost in hunter dollars. Why shouldn’t everyone pay for that management?
I hunt the state of Illinois and their DNR is funded by public money as well as hunting and fishing fees. This past year, the now impeached governor "swept" 9.2 million from DNR accounts to bail out the general fund. If the PGC takes money from general funds, that becomes a possibility here too.
Yes states that work from their state’s general fund do have times when they have budget cuts. But, none of them are going ten or more years without an increase in their funding budget either as we have historically have had to do here in Pennsylvania and then have still have to backslide in sound wildlife to get even a modest increase that we can’t spend any way because we know we have to save anything we can just to survive the next round of refusals to grant a desperately needed increase.
Those state that are general fund only have to plan one year of cuts or program deductions at a time because they going to get a new budget to work with next year. Here never implement many of the good programs many other states have had in wildlife management for years because we know we have to conserve money for the next lean period of lean year. We typically have to start major program cuts five or more years before we get a license increase. That does NOT result in the best possible wildlife management. Yet a segment of our hunter still scream they will not support more money to the agency until the get better management or a louder voice.
That screaming and financial blackmail has been the very thing that has caused the majority of the division between hunter and the wildlife management professionals and I only see one way of even starting to fix that. That first step would come from having a funding method that stopped the back and blackmail and back and forth arguments about money. Letting everyone pay their fair share for the benefits of the state’s wildlife resources and their management is not the demon some people proclaim it to be or it wouldn’t be working so well in other states.
IMHO. we need an independent combined fish and game agency that opens it's doors a bit more and we also need the extremists that brought this lawsuit to shut up and sit down. Sadly, neither is likely to happen.
I think the Game Commission is very open even though we all have to recognize that not all hunters are going to get thing just the way they wish it was. It could be a lot better if there wasn’t such an inherent lack of trust in the Agency. It could also be a lot better if the over whelming financial problems would allow for better management and if all of the hunters worked toward a solution instead of so many just wanting to be an advisory and block or undermine better funding initiatives. That day has to come when hunters realize they can no longer fund sound of even good wildlife management programs and practices without outside funding of some kind. There are different ways of getting there but fighting and stomping our feet isn’t going to be the way to finding the best ways.
R.S Bodenhorn